Laurie, it would be interesting if you could delve a bit deeper.  I have some thoughts:

* It would be very interesting how much time the 80 million users consume in the average week of Q4 2025
* Even more interesting would be the average daily usage per user
* 80 million sounds a big amount, but given that the Population is 8.3 billion it is just < 1%.

It would have been useful to mention that Northwestn's ad evaluation is done by a relatively small group of MBA students using a model that is unique and just fine (Attention, Distinction, Positioning, Linkage, Amplification, and Net Equity) but there are so many other ways to evaluate ads -- this is only one of many.  The second placed ad from Anthropic’s Claude has so little sigificance to the average viewer that few would even know what the product was and maybe this is one that ao many had to look it up to find out it was yet another confusing AI ad (this ad tied to 45th place out of 54 ads reviewed by USA Today's Admeter).  

All those companies that create sub-par/lousy ads should hire you to evaluate and promote their product.  How many of those downloads were to simply find out what the brand was and other reasons that are not at all positive for the brand. It is easy to find reasons why a lousy ad created a huge amount of chatter-- like how horrible the ad was. That happens so often but in the end the company failed misserably since negative opeinions of an ad carry over to the company, no matter how many downloads and comments.  

The  only  issue with this new system, Laurie, is that it doesn't measure viewing only that  somebody was present when a commercial appeared on-screen. As a guess, this overstates the "audience" of an average TV commercial---eyes on-screen 2+ seconds--by about 35%.

I read between the lines that when Trump didn't want TV Groups to go over was the O&Os wasn't Nexstar, Sinclair, Gray etc. I see lawsuits to delay the merger of Nexstar & TEGNA hoping that the courts will deny The FCC rule changes and kill the deal which I see the courts will deny those that don't want the deal to happen in my opinion.

Yes, Trump is a bullshitter, and Dan C is right that he's hardly the first. Bullshitting is an essential political skill. But that's not all Trump does. He's the greatest story-generator of all time. Way back in his first administration, I explained how he does it, and why journalism can't stop covering it: https://doc.searls.com/2019/07/23/where-journalism-fails/ .

My heart and prayers go out to Savannah Guthrie and her family so very sad about Nancy and I fear she is dead and that it was inside job in my opinion a caregiver. Ihope I'm wrong and that Nancy is still alive.

I'm with George. The last thing we need is more perverse and corrupting incentives on athletes, particularly those in what were otherwise "amateur" sports.

"Nielsen also says..."

Is that Nielsen actually saying that stuff, or is it Fox's interpretation of Nielsen data?

And if this channel is doing so well, how come Fox has never said if Tubi is profitable or not?

When I played college football 50 years ago, it was corrupt, but hidden from public view.  Now with NIL payments moving into the millions, greater corruption will follow.  Betting is just one more way to add that much more corruption. 

It's interesting that your staff keeps bringing up how much money Bezos has.  Like floating a dying news organization doesn't matter because he "can afford" to lose money.  The Graham family specificially stated that a major reason for selling the WP is because layoffs were unavoidable and they didn't know how to best navigate the digital landscape.  I'm curious what solutions the staff at WashPo have presented to Bezos to turn things around?

And for specificity, the fact checking database was dismantled in 2021 because we all know Uncle Joe and his fellow democrats never tell a lie.

Obama also mocked Trump publicly saying he'd never be POTUS. Funny how that worked out.

Both parties lie constantly. Bezos floating the Washington Post doesn't change that.

I've been in the media industry for 30 years.  I've been laid off 4 times due to mergers and aquisitions and incompetent management.  Not once did anyone ever come into my office, hug me, tell me how wonderful I am, and take me to lunch first. 

I didn't expect them to. It's business. 

Bezos' fortune has nothing to do with it.  He's not running a charity and if these journalists were so awesome, then why does their readership continue to decline?  The Washington Post is also not the only newspaper that has struggled to remain relevant.

You have to ask yourself why so many independent journalists are able to build their own, profitable platforms, but a brand like the Washington Post can't seem to figure it out.

Layoffs in this business are nothing new and Bezos didn't become rich buying companies that continually lose $100 million a year.  This "venerable institution" had declining revenue for 7 years straight before Bezos bought it with personal funds.  If you look at the bumps and declines in traffic, it has everything to do wtih politics and nothing to do with news reporting. 

Remind yourself that Graham family feared that if they stayed in control, they would eventually have to cut the newsroom so deeply to stay profitable that the paper would lose its journalistic soul. They chose to sell to Bezos who promised to fund the mission without the immediate pressure of quarterly earnings.  

Like him or hate him, WAPO has fared better and longer under Bezos than it would have under the Graham family.  These jobs would have been axed a long time ago.

 
 

I always say the house always wins when it comes to gambling. And I don't like to lose money why I don't gamble all that much and bet as little as well. And I suck at spreads as well why I always have a losing record on Yahoo College Pick'em  game.

I watched a doc on Vice about the sports betting boom in the US last week pretty good doc. The sports books don't want winners and if your good in a sport and win they set limits on how much you can win say bet $25 will say you can only bet $14, but in a different sport you can bet say $200 as they know a person isn't good at the NBA and is very good at tennis bets. I always thought that the sports books ads are too good to be true with first bet of $5 you can win up to $250 you have to win the first bet to get $250 there is always a catch.

Josh, in the last two years we have already seen several scandals with one player banned for life in baseball and another guy--in the NBA--accused of leavng games early which would affect the score who was working to that end for the gamblers. I n my vew, this is just the beginning--unless very strict controls are imposed by the leagues.

To be concise ... you bet !

I'm just going to say the same thing I say every time this topic comes up.

If organized gambling is now a part of the rich tapestry of the sporting experience, as opposed to a dark taboo like when I was a kid, can we at least please Pete Rose in the freaking Hall of Fame?

Dave, I have commented on this several subject several times. I think that its only  a matter of time before we will witness major betting/gambling scandals involving game outcome fixing by greedy players and/or coaches--who just have to have more money despite the handsome salaries and other perks they are now getting. The leagues----and players--- have chosen to dance with the devil---and eventually, they may pay a steep price for that decision.

The article mentions the CREATIVE agency only. What agency placed/bought the time to palce the superbowl ad?  For me, this is only hslf the story.

I knew that Kelly Clarkson was going to end her talk show as rumors for about a year that it was ending from Page Six articles and family comes fisrt all the best to Kelly. I wonder if WWMT will go with news at 4PM or will take Tamron Hall or Jennifer Hudson for 4PM and take Kelly's slot which was 1 and done as DR. Phil had that for years after Lady O finally ended her talker.

As for Wood TV who will take over Sherri's timeslot which took over for Rachael Ray in 2023 at 2PM either Tamron Hall or J-Hud which Tamron will be on a main channel as it has always been on DT2 on Nexstar & Sinclair which was CW7/ARC-WMI for 5 seasons and CW-WMI the last 2 seasons always been on in the mornings which CW7/ARC-WMI put her in a better timeslot 11AM & 10AM than CW-WMI at 8AM. Or someone could go with Adam's Law.

It looks to me like attentiveness/eyes-on/Resonance will be a separate measurement, integrated with the counting. Services like TVision, Adelaide, RMT, MediaProbe and others provide attentiveness/impression quality mesurement. When I was at VideoAmp, I advocated for open source atentiveness-- i.e., let the user decide which attentiveness provider they wanted to use in tandem with VideoAmp meaaurement. And Adelaide has an integration with Nielsen, I beloieve they have an integration with RealEyes as well.

Josh, it's likely to produce different numbers than we get from the people meter, though the button pressing system is, itself, highly questionable when extended to particular portions of a telecast and commercials, in particular. The new system's main weakness is it's lack of any indication of attentiveness--a fault it shares with the outmoded people meter system.

A comment, and a question.

THe comment: I get that the industry refers to this as co-viewing, but really it's personification, which includes conversion of sets/HHs to persons counts, AND demographic assignmentd of these persons. It is the creation of demographic VPVH, inclusive of both co-viewing and demographic assignment (i.e., not just "2 viewers", but "2 viewers, one a 35 year-old male, the other a 28 year-old female.")

THe question: what happens if the co-viewing collected in this fadshion is materially different from people meter-based co-viewing? (Spoiler alert: 100%, it will be.) In fact, perhapps more to the point, what happens if the Nielsen demographic skews from this new co-viewing methodology begin to resemble the demo skews of other bog data-based currencies? Does the improvement in Nielsen demopgraphic assignment potentially end up validating demo skews of competitors? 

CBS is in a rock in a hard place and will remain the dog station when it comes to news as conseratives aren't going to watch and the few liberals that watched are leaving in droves. CBS News is just changing chairs on the deck and never changes and always in last place and way behind ABC & NBC in the ratings when it comes to news.